1. What Do Users Think of Us? Mining Three Rounds of Cornell LibQUAL Data
Liane B’Brien, [Linda Miller], Xin Li
Sept. 25, 2008

2. Institutional Background
Cornell University
13,500 undergraduate
7,000 graduate/professional students
3,000 faculty
12,000 staff
The Library System
20 distributed libraries
460 staff
$53.6 million total expenditure
Duplicate slide to maintain title and subtitle formatting

3. LibQUAL at Cornell Cornell administered 4 rounds of the survey
In 2001, Cornell was a developing partner (pilot phase)
Total respondents for was 1,742
287 faculty
707 grads
748 undergrads
The response rate has trended downward from 20% in 2002 to 15% in 2005
Duplicate slide to maintain title and subtitle formatting

4. Why go back to past LibQUAL data?
It reveals how Cornell has done in four areas that matter to users:
Human touch
Library as place
User empowerment
Access to materials/resources
These data will help us to:
Understand better where Cornell has done well or not well over time
Identify areas for improvement
Spot changes and early signs of new trends
Duplicate slide to maintain title and subtitle formatting

5. Methodology of this analysis
Focused on the core questions
Excluded 2001 data due to pilot-nature
Selected only the questions asked in all three surveys (with a few exceptions)
Analyzed the “Perceived, Desired, & Minimum” ratings for each group

6. Assumptions LibQUAL borrows some assumptions from the business world
Users will choose the most satisfactory/efficient services that fits their personal needs
We can’t change their expectations, but we can change what we offer
Whether we changed enough is reflected in users’ responses

7. LibQUAL ratings variables
Nine point scale: 1 = lowest , 9 = highest
Where the user perceives the library service is now
The level the user wants
The lowest service level the user can accept

8. Understanding the graph
User’s desire
Where Cornell is in user’s mind
Above average
User’s range of tolerance for a particular Cornell service
Expectation mid-way or “average”
Below average
Minimum level user can accept

9. Users’ average perception ratings
The scores are well above average
Cornell seems to be doing better in 2005 than it did in 2003

10. Perception in the context of expectations
… until you put them in the context of their expectations
Expectations have gone up and the tolerance range has narrowed
Both scores are close to the minimum level acceptable
The score is up in 2005, but we lost ground in meeting expectations

11. Human Touch services (Questions 1-9)
Willingness to help users (1)
Dependability in handling user’s service problems (2)
Employees who deal with users in a caring fashion (3)
Employees who have the knowledge to answer user questions (4)
Employees who instill confidence in users (5)
Employees who understand the needs of their users (6)
Readiness to respond to users’ questions (7)
Giving users individual attention (8)
Employees who are consistently courteous (9)

12. Library As Place services (Questions 10-11)
Quiet space for individual activities (10)
A comfortable and inviting location (11)

13. User Empowerment services (Questions 12-16)
Making electronic resources accessible from my home or office (12)
A library Web site enabling me to locate information on my own (13)
Modern equipment that lets me easily access needed information (14)
Easy-to-use access tools that allow me to find things on my own (15)
Making information easily accessible for independent use (16)

14. Access to Materials/Resources services (Questions 17-20)
Timely document delivery (17)
The printed library materials I need for my work (18)
Print and/or electronic journal collections I require for my work (19)
The electronic information resources I need (20)

15. How we analyzed the data
Overview data
Data by the four areas
Human Touch
Library as a Place
User Empowerment
Access
Question-specific data

16. Overall, Cornell is doing very well
Most scores are well above the survey scale’s midpoint (5)
Most scores increased from 2003
Cornell has also faired well against its participating ARL peers

17. Overall, Cornell users expect a lot
Mid-scale
Mid-scale
Although the survey score range is 1-9, the majority of all Cornell scores are 6+, with a few in 5+

18. Services most important to users
Faculty
Desired service levels above 8 at least 2 times from 2002 to 2005 2
9, 17
10, 11
Grads
1, 4, 7, 18, 19
None
Undergrads
12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20
Question #s: 1-9 Human Touch Question #s: Library as a Place
Question #s: User Empowerment Question #s: Access

19. Grads & Undergrads only
Perceived service levels in bottom half of user groups’ ranges of tolerance
ALL user types
Faculty only
Faculty & Grads only
Grads only
Grads & Undergrads only
Undergrads
only
2005
12, 13, 15, 19 18
4, 11, 14, 16
10, 20
2003
12, 15,
19, 20
13, 18 10 16
2002 12
4, 13,15, 16
10, 14
Question #s: 1-9 Human Touch Question #s: Library as a Place
Question #s: User Empowerment Question #s: Access !

20. Grads & Undergrads only
Perceived service levels in bottom quarter of user groups’ ranges of tolerance
ALL
Faculty only
Faculty & Grads only
Grads only
Grads & Undergrads only
Undergrads
only
2005
12, 13, 15, 19, 20
2003 12 15 19 10
2002 13
Question #s: 1-9 Human Touch Question #s: Library as a Place
Question #s: User Empowerment Question #s: Access !!

21. The Human Touch Area (9 services)
Over all years, all but 3 perceived service levels were above user group’s average expectations
Faculty and grads’ desired service levels were higher than undergrads’
Overall, more of faculty’s expectations were met

22. The Human Touch Area (9 services)
Highest desired service levels in this area in 2005
Willingness to help users
Employees who have the knowledge to answer user questions
Readiness to respond to users’ questions
Employees who are consistently courteous
Lowest desired service levels in this area in 2005
Employees who instill confidence in users
Giving users individual attention
Overall, services that met less of user groups’ expectations
Dependability in handling users’ service problems

23. Employees who have the knowledge to answer user questions
Faculty desired service level rose from 2002 to 2005, while those for students fell
More of each groups’ expectations were met in 2005 than in 2002

24. The Library as a Place Area (2 services)
Obvious differences between user groups:
faculty desired service levels were lower, and a larger part of their expectations were met
for students, the opposite was true
More of all groups’ expectations were met for “A comfortable and inviting location” than for “A quiet space for individual activities”

25. Quiet space for individual activities
All user groups’ perceived service levels rose each year
Undergrad’s desired service level rose from 2002 to 2005 (true for only 3 of the 20 services covered)
Undergrads’ range of tolerance narrowed each year
Less of undergrads’ expectations were met each year; more of faculty and grads’ expectations were met in 2005

26. User Empowerment Area (5 services)
Clearly an area of concern
Desired service levels were high for all groups
Many perceived service levels fell below groups’ average expectations
All groups’ scores are more similar to each other than in previous areas

27. Making electronic resources accessible from my office or home
All perceived service levels fell bellow groups’ average expectations in all 3 rounds
However, more of each groups’ expectations were met in 2005 than in 2003
Undergrads’ desired service level increased from 2002 to 2005
All groups’ scores are similar

28. Access Area (4 services)
High desired service levels for all groups (esp. faculty and grads)
Overall, desired service levels for collections higher than for those for document delivery / ILL
Many perceived service levels for collection-specific services fell bellow user groups’ average expectations

29. The printed library materials I need for my work
Faculty’s desired service levels higher than those of students in 2003 and 2005
Faculty and grad desired service levels rose each year; undergrads’ desired service levels dropped from 2002 to 2005
Range of tolerance of all users shrinking
Less of each group’s expectations were met in 2005 than in 2002

30. Recent Library actions?
The Human Touch
Library as a Place
Space renovations in various libraries
Open up staff meetings space for study after hours ?
Access
GetIT
Buy instead of borrow
Favoring e-resources
Scholarly Communications
Large Scale Digitization
User Empowerment
Web Vision
Usability testing
Loaner laptops and equipments
VIVO

31. Questions to Ponder Would you use LibQUAL data to make decisions?
Does it help narrow down SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats)?
Where are we consistently doing well?
Where are we consistently weak?
Are these weak areas the Library’s opportunities to invest in, or,
Are these areas we should give up or give over to competitors?
Should we do LibQUAL again? If so, how often?

32. Thank you very much! Contact: ResearchAndAssessment@cornell.edu
Questions?
Thank you very much!
Contact:
Narrative Report can be found at: